Conference back40::soapbox

A couple of years ago I walked into Jordan Marsh, and they accosted
me at the door to apply for an account and receive a discount on all
purchases that day (except in the Jewelry department).

"Why should I get a Jordan Marsh card?" I asked.  "Jordan Marsh accepts
all the other credit cards I carry."  But the greeter was insistent,
knowing that the discount might convince me to make a purchase or make
more purchases right then and there.

I bought the highest quality Kitchen-Aid mixer as a present for my wife;
it was charged to this brand new account at a significant discount; I
paid the bill in full when it arrived.

When the new Jordan Marsh card arrived, I filed it away in a safe place
and hadn't looked at it since until this silly discussion came up.  It's
an interesting card, with no expiration date.

/john

>                 -< There is no deception or abuse involved. >-

Agreed.

Feeling the need to satisfy some "obligation" by virtue of having taken
advantage of an offer freely made and expressed as being "with no strings
attached", leaves one open to being abused themselves.

    
    The two times i have availed myself of such an offer my conscience was 
    clear concerning my actions in that it never crossed my mind that i might 
    be "deceiving" someone. 
    
    at any rate, even the rebukes of the unregenerate should be considered
    by a man desirous of growth in godliness. next time this opportunity 
    presents itself i will have fully considered the "perfect law of liberty" 
    which St. Paul has described most fully.
    
    jeff

	"the rebukes of the unregenerate"?

	hey, i think we've been insulted, guys.  ;>

    This started with 12.173, in which Diane spoke about the Filene's "10%
    off the first purchase" enticement to open a charge. It so happens that
    the 10% discount occurs when you make your first purchase _using the
    credit card_, so all of this chatter about deception is eminently
    pointless. If you use the card, you fulfill the obligation needed to
    get the 10% discount, so you never have to use the card again if you
    don't want to. What could possibly be simpler? (It's simple everywhere
    but here in the 'box, where there's always someone ready to made the
    simple things unduly difficult...)

    .4
    
    nah.  unregenerate == stubborn.  we're good at that, right?

>>    so all of this chatter about deception is eminently
>>    pointless. 

	it is not pointless.  if you open the charge just to get 
	the discount, you're being opportunistic and, in my opinion,
	a tad unethical.  there are varying opinions on that.
	hence the "chatter".

    
>>    nah.  unregenerate == stubborn.  we're good at that, right?

	doesn't it mean "unrepentant" in that context?

    > doesn't it mean "unrepentant" in that context?
    
    one man's context is another man's contest.

    
    Well...what about those places that offer you free trial subscriptions,
    free temporary memberships, etc.?  Am I being deceptive if I don't extend 
    the subscription or membership after the trial runs out?
    
    I got this card that offered one free pair of hose thru the mail upon 
    return of the card.  I read it carefully before returning it; nowhere did 
    it say anything about being obligated to purchase more hose.  (I would
    have pitched it if so.)  They sent me three pair, saying basically "here's 
    your free pair, and here are two more.  Please pay us for the two
    more."  I pitched the invoice.  I did not request the additional hose;
    legally I am not obligated to pay for them.
    
    Should I smack myself on the hand?  I think not.
                                                    

    >if you open the charge just to get the discount, you're being
    >opportunistic and, in my opinion a tad unethical.
    
     Oh, so this is a moral, rather than legal discussion? With the chatter
    about fraud and stuff I thought people were talking about what their
    actual obligations were, not what additional obligations they chose to
    impose upon themselves. Nevermind.

    
>>    Should I smack myself on the hand?  I think not.

	I don't think you should either.

    
>>     Oh, so this is a moral, rather than legal discussion? 
	
	It has clearly been a discussion of ethics, not legalities,
	from the beginning.

    NOTE:  This is NOT A Thumper Reply
    
    
    Diane:
    
    I am reminded of a parable Jesus told his disciples.  It seems there
    was a man who was wealthy and owned a vineyard.  Now at 7:00 in the AM,
    he hired some workers at two Denarii to work the fields for the day.  
    At noon, more individuals came looking for work.  The man hired them...
    also at the rate of two denarii.  At 4:00, the same.  Men showed up and 
    were offered two denarii.  And finally at 6:00, men showed up and were
    offered two denarii.
    
    When the end of the day came a few hours later, the rich owner settled
    up with the workers.  When those who started at 7:00 AM saw they were
    paid the same as those starting at night, they were understandable
    quite indignant.  The owner then said to these men, "Why are you so
    angry?  Did you not agree to work the day for 2 denarii?  (Paraphrased:
    Gentlemen, you came to me looking for work, we made a contract, you
    don't have a complaint!)
    
    I too went into Jordan Marsh, they had a special on suits.  The man at
    the register, an official representative of Jordan Marsh, told me that
    if I applied for a credit card, I would get 10% off.  Diane, there is
    absolutely nothing unethical about the fact that I will not use the
    credit card again.  They approach me, they verbally made a contract
    with terms and conditions, I adhered to those conditions, end of story.
    If they have a complaint, then they need to change their policy.
    
    Yours Truly Forever and Always,
    
    -Jack 

	Jack, I love it when you tell me stories, but we disagree, my pet.

    Oh, so you're a union type eh!!?   :-)
    
    Okay, why do we disagree?  Are you disagreeing because you like me and
    you know that opposites attract?  Is that it???
    
    

    .15
    
    actually, the agreed wage was one denarius, not two denarii.

>It so happens that the 10% discount occurs when you make your first purchase
>_using the credit card_

In the Jordan Marsh case, a temporary card was provided immediately upon
filling out the application, valid on that day for charging purchases to
the card at 10% off.

/john

| <<< Note 126.1 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>


| I bought the highest quality Kitchen-Aid mixer as a present for my wife;

	Was it an anniversary??? :-)  John, if you bought it at JM, then you
paid more than what it was worth to begin with. 

| <<< Note 126.4 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "too few args" >>>


|| "the rebukes of the unregenerate"?

| hey, i think we've been insulted, guys.  ;>

	Hey, who are you calling a guy?? :-o   Lady Di, think about it. Someone
who deceives is calling us unregenerates. Does it really matter? :-)

>>    Okay, why do we disagree?  Are you disagreeing because you like me and
>>    you know that opposites attract?  Is that it???

    i've never bought that "opposites attract" hooey, but anyways,
    the bindermeister has explained quite nicely why i disagree with you.
    i agree that a contract is made and that there's nothing
    illegal about it and all that, but there is such a thing as knowing
    the _intent_ of the contract and deciding whether one wants to comply
    with that as well.
    
    

| <<< Note 126.9 by SMURF::BINDER "vitam gustare" >>>

| > doesn't it mean "unrepentant" in that context?

| one man's context is another man's contest.


	You women get left out of everything....

| <<< Note 126.10 by POWDML::LAUER "Little Chamber of Perdition" >>>


| Well...what about those places that offer you free trial subscriptions, free 
| temporary memberships, etc.?  Am I being deceptive if I don't extend the 
| subscription or membership after the trial runs out?

	No. If something is temporary, it is not permanant. 

| Should I smack myself on the hand?  I think not.

	No, you did not order it. You should have sent them back though. They
did not belong to you. Sure, man's law says you don't have to, but does God's
law?

| <<< Note 126.13 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "too few args" >>>



| It has clearly been a discussion of ethics, not legalities,


	Ladi Di, does this mean that legalities have nothing to do with ethics? 

| <<< Note 126.17 by AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!" >>>


| Okay, why do we disagree?  Are you disagreeing because you like me and
| you know that opposites attract?  Is that it???

	Do you REALLY think Lady Di would date her pet? Me thinks not!

   >>Ladi Di, does this mean that legalities have nothing to do with ethics? 

	no. ;>

    
    I would have had to pay the postage to send them back, tho, Glen, and I 
    never requested them in the first place.  I feel they were legally mine to 
    keep, and evidently they do too, because every notice they send asking for 
    payment simply states that if I don't pay they won't send me any more, not 
    that they're sending my account to a collection agency or anything.
    
    If they had been good quality hose I *would* have paid for them and
    ordered more, but they weren't, IMO.

    If this were not ultimately a profitable practice, the department
    stores would stop making these offers. 
    
    Mark

>>    If this were not ultimately a profitable practice, the department
>>    stores would stop making these offers. 

	no kidding.  but people who take the discount and then 
	don't use the card cut into those profits.

| <<< Note 126.29 by MIMS::LESSER_M "Who invented liquid soap and why?" >>>


| If this were not ultimately a profitable practice, the department
| stores would stop making these offers.

	They just make up for it by raising prices further down the line....

    	I find it strange that people can argue so passionately about
    	the morals of using a 10% enticement offer from a business, but
    	can so easily dismiss the morality of terminating the life of
    	a pre-born baby.	

    
    
    Whad'ya want from a zebra???
    

>               <<< PEAR::DKB100:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
>                          -< Soapbox.  Just Soapbox. >-
>================================================================================
>Note 12.281                   Things to Hate Today                    281 of 281
>BIGQ::SILVA "Memories....."                          13 lines   1-DEC-1994 13:29
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>| <<< Note 12.273 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Dig a little deeper" >>>
>
>
>
>| How do you view the scenario I presented in .227?
>
>
>	Gee Jim, I've known many a people who have worked for a company and
>told the customers to do this or that. The intent behind it all by the higher
>ups is what counts, not how everyone deceives people.
>
>
>Glen

How high up do you suppose you have to go, Glen? When a salesdroid tells you
it's OK to cut up the card as long as you apply, don't you think that their
immediate management has already given them the wrong message?

	.32

	somebody shoot him.  maybe one of you canadians before they
	take your guns.

    hapenis is a warm gun.

re: Di

>	no kidding.  but people who take the discount and then 
>	don't use the card cut into those profits.

But, how 'bout the people who use the card and pay off their balance
before the finance charge kicks in? How 'bout those who shop there
afterwards and pay cash?

"Using the card" in and of itself has no benefit to the store above and
beyond any random shopper who wanders in off the street.

If "having the card" improves the odds that one will shop there, all well
and good, but its use is almost immaterial in many cases.

>>If "having the card" improves the odds that one will shop there, all well
>>and good, but its use is almost immaterial in many cases.

	it's not just "all well and good" though.  it would seem to be
	quite a huge plus for the store.  lots of times, i've heard people 
	say they were going to buy something somewhere just because they
	had a charge at that store.  "i can put it on my lechmere charge"
	springs to mind, for example.

>>    but there is such a thing as knowing
>>    the _intent_ of the contract and deciding whether one wants to
>>    comply with that as well.
    
    Yes but Diane my sweet, that is not the consumers problem.  It is the
    retail stores issue.  As far as I'm concerned, I fully complied with
    the terms and conditions of the company.
    
    Let's throw out another example.  Last week I signed up for Triple A
    road service.  I already signed up and lo and behold, my truck needed
    towing.  The cards were in process and were in the mail; however, I
    hadn't received them yet.  I called AAA and explained that I needed the
    cards.  I gave them my credit card number over the phone (which I hate
    doing), I got the card number, then I called the tow service.  Now I
    assure you that this winter, AAA will LOSE money on me.  My truck is a
    boat and gets stuck in my driveway at least three times a winter.
    
    Diane, this is not my problem, this is their problem.  They could have
    denied me...but we made an agreement and it is their job to stick to
    the T's and C's of the same.  If they want to bellyache, tell them to
    call Ralph Nader!!!!
    
    Your Pet,
    
    -Jack

Re: <<< Note 126.22 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "too few args" >>>

>>    i agree that a contract is made and that there's nothing
>>    illegal about it and all that, but there is such a thing as knowing
>>    the _intent_ of the contract and deciding whether one wants to comply
>>    with that as well.

I think you're reading more into the intent than the marketing types envisioned.

The marketing types know that many, if not most people once they have a credit
card will spend lotsa money using that credit card; the key is to get the card
into their hot little hands first.  They've decided that their profit on the
people who keep using the credit card will be more than the people who use it
only one time.  It's been decided that the loss on those who use it one time
will be less than the profit on those who keep using it.

So your one-time use is already part of the equation and your behavior has
already been taken into account.  In other words, by being one of the people
that only use it once, you're fulfilling the marketeer's expectations, and
therefore their intent.
                                  Roak

    
>>    Yes but Diane my sweet, that is not the consumers problem.  It is the
>>    retail stores issue. 

	exactamundo.  it's their problem and you've caused it.  if you
	don't care about that, that's your prerogative.  i do.

	the Triple A, er, example (i've been warned about using the word
	"thing") is not analogous.  that's the way they operate.  darling.

	>> you're fulfilling the marketeer's expectations, and
	>>therefore their intent.

	just because somone expects something, that doesn't mean
	he intends it.  banks probably _expect_ to get robbed at
	some point, but they certainly don't _intend_ to.

| <<< Note 126.33 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

| How high up do you suppose you have to go, Glen? When a salesdroid tells you
| it's OK to cut up the card as long as you apply, don't you think that their
| immediate management has already given them the wrong message?

	Gotta go to who wrote the thing.


Glen

Is using a card but paying it off prior to assessment of finance charges
deception?
Is paying cash rather than using a card you hold deception?

    I think it is deceptive to walk into a store and then not buy anything.

    I think it is deceptive to not buy anthing and then walk into a store.

>>Is using a card but paying it off prior to assessment of finance charges
>>deception?

	no

>>Is paying cash rather than using a card you hold deception?

	no

Then what's deceptive about applying for it with the intent never to use it,
which could be accomplished by either of those behaviors?

    I think it is deceptive to not go into a store without buying anything
    and then having seconds thoughts about it.

>>Then what's deceptive about applying for it with the intent never to use it,
>>which could be accomplished by either of those behaviors?

	it's just that - an _intent_ issue.  in the other two situations,
	you apparently have a card that you _might_ use periodically.
	even if you pay off the balance every month, you are still
	more likely to shop there, in general.

Re: <<< Note 126.42 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "too few args" >>>

>>                banks probably _expect_ to get robbed at
>>	some point, but they certainly don't _intend_ to.

I was hoping that everyone would have enough maturity not to draw a comparison
of an illegal act against a legal one, but I guess not.

                               Roak

It's been so long I forget - did anyone say that they'd never ever shop
at the store again except for the discounted purchase?

    
    i think her personal name tells the story. ;)
    
    jeff

>>I was hoping that everyone would have enough maturity not to draw a comparison
>>of an illegal act against a legal one, but I guess not.

	oh yes, i'm so friggin' childish, it's unbelievable.

    
    
    it seems to me that...
    
    There are other advantages the stores get from your credit card
    application.  They can put you on their mailing list if you're not
    already on it.  They have financial and other demographic information
    on you.  This can all be used in their own marketing efforts, and
    selected portions of it can be sold.  On average, the additional income
    from potential future sales, whether or not they involve the store
    credit card, and from selling information about you, is probably much
    greater than the incentive discount.
    
    /sl
    

	.55  that is, of course, true, though i doubt that the
	     consumers apply with the store's interests in mind.

And once you've applied, they've got all of those benefits regardless of
whether or not you ever grace their doorway again, muchless with card in hand.

Re: <<< Note 126.54 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "too few args" >>>

>>	oh yes, i'm so friggin' childish, it's unbelievable.

Are you saying that you still consider your comparison of an illegal act to a
perfectly legal one valid?

                             Roak

    
    RE: .56
    
    >that is, of course, true, though i doubt that the
    > consumers apply with the store's interests in mind.
    
    
     Do you think the store's baiting tactics have the consumers well-being
    in mind whilst baiting?
    

>>Are you saying that you still consider your comparison of an illegal act to a
>>perfectly legal one valid?

	it was totally arbitrary.  here - if you like this better, try
	this one:  i _expect_ to be addressed rudely in the 'box from
	time to time, but that doesn't mean i _intend_ to be.

    
    
>>     Do you think the store's baiting tactics have the consumers well-being
>>    in mind whilst baiting?

	no.
    

    
>>    i think her personal name tells the story. ;)

	what do you want me to do, jeff?  manufacture arguments for
	the sake of it?  is there some sort of argument quota to be
	met during any discussion?

    
    i was really only jesting.  however, the idea was that once one ran out
    of arguments (i.e. there are "too few args") that one might proceed to
    create one that might not be a good one (e.g. comparing illegal and
    legal acts).
    
    oh well.
    
    jeff

    DOOM!

BTW, I just decided to be clever with my two credit cards (one VISA, one M/C,
both with huge limits and "no annual fee for life").  (Rarely use the AMEX.)

I asked one of them to change the statement closing date to be 15 days before
the statement closing date of the other one.  They agreed.

It is now my intention to use each card exclusively for the fifteen days
immediately following the statement closing date, thus maximizing my float.

Both cards automatically debit my checking account for the full amount on
the statement due date, which is about 21 days after the closing date.

Thus I will have an average float of six weeks on all purchases.

No don't tell me that this is deception.  It's just good money management
strategy.

/john

    Good money management.  Agreed.
    
    Now, if someone could just 'splain to me why I recently received two
    letters, on the same day, from the bank that carries my Visa card.
    One expressed concern/dismay/confusion/sadness that my last payment
    had not yet been received.  The second congratulated me on my fine
    use of credit and added another $3,000 to the card limit.
    
    joanne
    

    lady di:
    
    not that it prolly matters, but I believe you're wrong in this
    case...still love ya!

	Lady di is not wrong on this. She has made perfect sense.

>>    not that it prolly matters, but I believe you're wrong in this
>>    case...still love ya!

	thanks, ron dear.  ;>

	i should probably have made it clear throughout that this is just a 
	personal ethical obligation i feel (and it ain't a big deal at that).
	i don't see why it's so hard to understand the principle, but
	that's just me.  i'll continue to think it's not the thing to do.

    .64 Steve, are you looking for the home computing note?
    
    jeff

I agree with Di on the principle, which isn't to say I
haven't done exactly what's being debated.

    	re .65
    
    	Excellent!
    
    	In addition you can look at paying your mortgage not on the due
    	date, but just before the "late" date, which is usually 15 days
    	after the due date.  Check the fine print of your mortgage 
    	agreement.  In most cases the 14-days-late payment is never 
    	reported to credit agencies (most only report if more than 30
    	days late) and you get the float for another 15 days each month.
    
    	Also I know that Discover card gives you a grace period of 10
    	days after the due date before interest is charged (if you pay
    	off the full balance.)  Other cards may do the same too.

    Minor nit on your mortgage payment.
    
    If you use this tactic, don't ever expect to remove your PMI insurance
    until you pay your house off.  (of course this implies you haven't
    already gotten the mortgage company to remove PMI, of course, I suppose
    they can always put it back on if you start screwing around).

    	Well that's good to know -- if you have PMI...

| <<< Note 126.74 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "I'm an orca." >>>

| Well that's good to know -- if you have PMI...


	Poor
	Management
	Insurance

    Irregardless of what you call it, 
    
    I call it spending money to protect someone else.  Call me selfish.
    
    "do you have life insurance?"
    Hell, if I croak, do you really think I'll be giving a chit about
    you people?
    

    Somebody used that word again.....

    I hate the concept of PMI.  If I default, you get the house.  You don't
    _need_ to be insured against default.
    
    I can't wait to get 20% equity.

    
    I didn't need to get PMI cuz I put down 36%.  Ergo I never had it
    explained to me.  What exactly are they insuring you for?

>    I hate the concept of PMI.  
    
    	Me too.  PMI allows lenders to be less careful about the loans
    	they write.
    
    	re .79
    
    	If you pay less than a 20% downpayment, PMI (private mortgage
    	insurance) protects the lenders beyond the downpayment they've
    	already collected.  The theory is that if the borrower has paid
    	20% or more, the bank ought to be able to recoup its loan amount
    	through auction if the borrower defaults.  (This is no longer a
    	safe assumption...)  If the borrower puts down less that 20%,
    	then a PMI underwriter shares in that risk.  As loans are
    	traditionally structured today, the borrower pays the insurance
    	costs.  If the borrower defaults, the PMI underwriter reimburses
    	the lender for (roughly) 20% of the loan value, and the lender 
    	absorbs the additional losses, if any.

    
    I see.  Thank you.

    
|    	Me too.  PMI allows lenders to be less careful about the loans
|    	they write.
    
    I'd have thought you'd love PMI.  Gives you just another thing to
    blame.
    
    								-mr. bill

	Equity....  ah, I remember equity.  I think we used to
	have about 30%, nowadays it's prolly more like 10%.

	Good thing we plan to stay there until we're 80 or 90.

    Just reading through this string... does anybody really believe that
    even with the discounts and enticements that the store is LOSING money
    on your purchase?  Did the card obtained in .0(?) come with any sort of
    contractual agreement obligating the proud, new card-holder to X amount
    of purchases within Y amount of time?

    Good Grief...

    John 

    Good story on one of those TV newsmags last night.  Some guy and his
    wife had about 10 of those frequent flier credit cards where for every
    dollar they charged, they would get one mile credit to a frequent flier
    program.
    
    These people being members of AAA were able to use their credit cards
    to purchase traveller checks.  They would then deposit the checks into
    their checking accounts and write checks against the accounts to pay
    their credit cards.
    
    Absolutely no money leakage in percentages or finance charges, yet they 
    were piling up 50,000 miles a month in their frequent flier accounts. 
    The credit cards people said this couple did nothing illegal.  AAA said
    they were legit, but abusing the membership privileges.
    
    The guy said the hardest part about it was signing all the traveller
    checks.
    
    -- Jim